US Federal House Bill HB1986

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/25
• Refer: 3/10/25

Caption

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 620 East Pecan Boulevard in McAllen, Texas, as the "Agent Raul H. Gonzalez Jr. Memorial Post Office Building".

Summary

HB1986 is a simple naming bill that designates the United States Postal Service facility at 620 East Pecan Boulevard in McAllen, Texas, as the “Agent Raul H. Gonzalez Jr. Memorial Post Office Building.” The bill also provides that any future reference in federal law, maps, regulations, documents, or other records to that postal facility should be understood to mean the newly named memorial post office building. The measure does not create a new program, authorize spending, or change postal operations; its effect is limited to the official federal designation of one USPS property. It is a commemorative bill intended to honor Agent Raul H. Gonzalez Jr. through a permanent public naming of the McAllen post office location.

Impact

The bill would amend the federal designation of a specific USPS facility in McAllen, Texas, and require all federal references to that location to use the memorial name. Its practical legal impact is narrow: it changes the official name of one postal building and may require updates to agency records, signage, maps, and other references, but it does not alter postal service delivery, staffing, or broader postal law.

Sentiment

The available record suggests the bill is noncontroversial and likely broadly supported, consistent with the common treatment of memorial post office naming bills. It was introduced with a large bipartisan group of Texas House members, and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate. The overall sentiment appears respectful and ceremonial rather than partisan or policy-driven.

Contention

No notable points of contention are reflected in the available materials. Because the bill is a commemorative designation, any disagreement would likely be limited to general preferences about naming federal facilities rather than substantive policy issues. The absence of recorded votes or committee discussion suggests there was little or no opposition in the available record.